Well, I certainly like the inclusion of Aquaman in the list of guest stars, but what's with the Golden Age Green Arrow alongside the new Blue Beetle? I'm sure they aren't following continuity (goodness I hope not), but that's still a weird choice, especially considering the greater visibility GA has had recently.

Well, I certainly like the inclusion of Aquaman in the list of guest stars, but what's with the Golden Age Green Arrow alongside the new Blue Beetle? I'm sure they aren't following continuity (goodness I hope not), but that's still a weird choice, especially considering the greater visibility GA has had recently.

I notice that too, maybe the storyline is going to be based on different time periods?

Once again, the Internet has unmasked my latest [secret project]. This one's called Batman: The Brave and the Bold, and I'm one of three directors on it, along with Brandon Vietti and Michael Chang, working for James Tucker, of Legion of Superheroes/Justice League/Batman/the-drawing-at-the-end-of-this-post fame, and Sam Register, executive producer of all kinds of awesome shows that you've spent so much time enjoying like Teen Titans, Transformers Animated, Clone Wars, Ben 10, and so on.

Also, here's a list of characters and guest-stars that will be appearing in the show - self-redacted, because 1/ I'm not allowed to spill these particular beans yet and 2/ it will annoy Colin. Keep checking in from time to time, though, and I will be unredacting names selectively, as I have been doing for my previous Transformers and Legion posts.

I wish I could talk about it, because we have [secret character], [secret character], and [secret character] appearing. How awesome is that? Also Blue Beetle (psst - it's [secret character] in the suit) and the new [secret character]. We also have Green Arrow and [secret character], rocking a decidedly more Silver Age appearance than they have in the comics currently. We even have some really obscure characters popping up, like [secret character], [secret character] and fan favorite [secret character]. Also James has promised that we'll finally see the return of [secret character] to the world of animation, which makes me happy, since I thought he should have been in JLU. Not to mention tons of [secret characters], including one who's never been animated before. And of course, my favorite, [secret character].

Oh, and the guest star voices! Can you believe we got [secret guest star]? We also got [secret guest star], reprising his role as [secret character], and [secret guest star], but not in the role you might expect (he'll actually be playing [secret character]). Plus the return of many familiar faces from shows I've worked on in the past, like [secret guest star], [secret guest star], [secret guest star], [secret guest star], [secret guest star] and [secret guest star]. So you can see why I would be excited!

Anyhow, the show is apparently airing Fridays on Cartoon Network, but not until the Fall. I will probably forget to remind you when it airs, but please, check it out!

I'm a huge Batman fan who's been lucky enough to work behind the scenes on both previous versions of Batman animation. I have to admit I was at the point where I thought Batman couldn't possibly be relaunched in any way that could elicit anything more than an eye roll out of me. But James, Sam, and Linda cooked up a new angle on the franchise that not only made me excited about Batman again, but actually made me even more excited about my career in animation. The Brave and the Bold is completely different and totally FUN! Just wait, you'll see.

I don't care for the emphasis on FUN FUN FUN (I'm getting a distinctly wacky vibe that probably won't fly for my Batman tastes), or the efforts to differentiate it from B:TAS, as I'd rather they just plop this series in between B:TAS and JLU continuity wise, or at least after TAS if not JLU.......HOWEVER, the tons of guest stars could be fairly awesome. On the one hand, some of these guys worked on JLU and B:TAS......on the other hand, they ALSO worked on The Batman. Legion actually doesn't bother me, as it seemed like they had mostly learned their lesson by the end there. I'm really hoping that Aquaman is the [secret character] from this sentence: "We also have Green Arrow and [secret character], rocking a decidedly more Silver Age appearance than they have in the comics currently" as opposed to this one: "and the new [secret character]".

This looks like a return to Adam West era-Batman, and is therefore something I think should be burned and never spoken of again. It was a good show in it's time, but the Batman fanbase as a whole has evolved beyond Bat Shark Repellant, methinks.

I have to say I am kind of looking forward to this show. I think Bats is due an injection of lightness, and as a father of a seven year old superhero and Batman fanatic, I won't mind some superhero stuff a bit more geared for his age level. We've rented the Adam West movie and the 1970s Filmation cartoon (voiced by West and Ward), and we both enjoyed them. I enjoyed the LOSH series, though it did fall of in the second season. And the new Spec Spidey seems to be made along similar lines. Honestly, I have to say that while I usually favor the "Dark Knight" approach to the character, I sometimes enjoy going beck to those goofy days of the late golden/early silver ages. Those stories may not engross me like more recent fare, but they make me smile. Just a different type of entertainment, in my opinion. And hey, it has nothing to do with continuity.

This looks like a return to Adam West era-Batman, and is therefore something I think should be burned and never spoken of again. It was a good show in it's time...

No, it wasn't.

As a kid I loved it. But I have pretty much no interest to see anything like it now.

I guess I didn't see it young enough, but even as a kid I thought it was pretty bad. But it wasn't a good show for it's time, it was a joke. A punchline built around the premise that superheroes sure are silly, which is part of why it's popularity peaked and then died in a relatively short time period.

The new Spectacular Spider-man cartoon isn't at all along the lines of the Adam West show. It may be along the same lines as this new Batman show, which wouldn't be so bad, but it's still wrong for Batman. Spidey is just a better all-ages character than Batman: he's younger, he's less tormented (generally speaking), and his origin, while including some off-camera violence, doesn't involve witnessing a brutal murder as a child.

The new Spectacular Spider-man cartoon isn't at all along the lines of the Adam West show. It may be along the same lines as this new Batman show, which wouldn't be so bad, but it's still wrong for Batman. Spidey is just a better all-ages character than Batman: he's younger, he's less tormented (generally speaking), and his origin, while including some off-camera violence, doesn't involve witnessing a brutal murder as a child.

Sorry if I was being unclear. I wasn't trying to suggest that Spec Spidey was like the 60s Batman live action show. Rather, I was trying to say that it seems similar (to me, anyway) to the recently ended Legion of Super Heroes show, which (in the first season, anyway) was a bit lighter in tone than either TAS family of shows or even The Batman. Spec Spidey seems a lot lighter than either the MTV digital Spidey cartoon, or the Fox toon that ran on Fox in the 90s. I would never say that it was a full on attempt to capture the camp of the West Batman series.

Personally? I love the 60s series. I think it's fantastic. It's not "real" Batman, but so what? I think there's plenty of room for lots of interpretations of characters, especially those as well known as Batman. This could just end up being fun, energetic, and enjoyable.

If they used a completely different hero, would that make people feel better? Say a Blue and Gold cartoon? Does Batman always have to be dark and serious? How about if they had JLU era Batman? Constantly annoyed at everybody's perceived incompetence? Would that be better?

Anyhow, don't knock it just because it isn't B:TAS. There probably won't be another Batman like that for a good long time. In the mean time, just lighten up a little.

Personally? I love the 60s series. I think it's fantastic. It's not "real" Batman, but so what? I think there's plenty of room for lots of interpretations of characters, especially those as well known as Batman. This could just end up being fun, energetic, and enjoyable.

If they used a completely different hero, would that make people feel better? Say a Blue and Gold cartoon? Does Batman always have to be dark and serious? How about if they had JLU era Batman? Constantly annoyed at everybody's perceived incompetence? Would that be better?

Anyhow, don't knock it just because it isn't B:TAS. There probably won't be another Batman like that for a good long time. In the mean time, just lighten up a little.

I agree, but I'm coming to realize that some comic fans want their depictions of the character portrayed every single time something is made. :P

Just to add my two cents, Batman is a character I rarely enjoy. His general attitude in the comics and his, "know it all before you do and I don't even need panel time or space to show when im figuring this stuff out," approach that certain writers use annoy me. Batman in JL/JLU annoyed me at times because they made use of the previously mentioned method. So, I'm not all that against a slightly newer approach for the character for a, get this, cartoon for kids to potentially enjoy.

Some comic fans need to jump out of that "bash bash bash" frame of mind when they see a comic revamped as a cartoon and think about the intended audience. I'm not opposed to them lightening up Batman for the kiddies to enjoy because they do need something superhero-related to latch onto. In case we all forgot, mainstream comics aren't super kid friendly anymore so if they want to get their batman fix and not be pounded with all the drama and darkness, this cartoon seems like it'd be right up their alley until they're ready for the harder stuff.

of course, you can say they should have chosen a better character for the kids, but Batman is known to kids already, it can easily tie into the upcoming movie, and there's not many all-ages characters still standing these days as every hero comic i've seen has been injected with some type of darkness or maturity I wouldn't want a kid under 10 or so to see (effectively ignoring the all ages books).

In case we all forgot, mainstream comics aren't super kid friendly anymore so if they want to get their batman fix and not be pounded with all the drama and darkness, this cartoon seems like it'd be right up their alley until they're ready for the harder stuff.

you heard it here first ladies and gentlemen, "fun batman" is a gateway drug. barricade the doors, lock your children away, and for goodness sake DO NOT TURN ON YOUR TELEVISION! :lol:

Personally? I love the 60s series. I think it's fantastic. It's not "real" Batman, but so what? I think there's plenty of room for lots of interpretations of characters, especially those as well known as Batman. This could just end up being fun, energetic, and enjoyable.

If they used a completely different hero, would that make people feel better? Say a Blue and Gold cartoon? Does Batman always have to be dark and serious? How about if they had JLU era Batman? Constantly annoyed at everybody's perceived incompetence? Would that be better?

Anyhow, don't knock it just because it isn't B:TAS. There probably won't be another Batman like that for a good long time. In the mean time, just lighten up a little.

I agree, but I'm coming to realize that some comic fans want their depictions of the character portrayed every single time something is made. :P

Just to add my two cents, Batman is a character I rarely enjoy. His general attitude in the comics and his, "know it all before you do and I don't even need panel time or space to show when im figuring this stuff out," approach that certain writers use annoy me. Batman in JL/JLU annoyed me at times because they made use of the previously mentioned method. So, I'm not all that against a slightly newer approach for the character for a, get this, cartoon for kids to potentially enjoy.

Some comic fans need to jump out of that "bash bash bash" frame of mind when they see a comic revamped as a cartoon and think about the intended audience. I'm not opposed to them lightening up Batman for the kiddies to enjoy because they do need something superhero-related to latch onto. In case we all forgot, mainstream comics aren't super kid friendly anymore so if they want to get their batman fix and not be pounded with all the drama and darkness, this cartoon seems like it'd be right up their alley until they're ready for the harder stuff.

of course, you can say they should have chosen a better character for the kids, but Batman is known to kids already, it can easily tie into the upcoming movie, and there's not many all-ages characters still standing these days as every hero comic i've seen has been injected with some type of darkness or maturity I wouldn't want a kid under 10 or so to see (effectively ignoring the all ages books).

I'm not knocking it just because it isn't B:TAS. I can like a show that's more fun, or even more kid friendly; I don't need the characters to be depicted the same way every time. But a Batman show that's fun and kid-friendly, that's a hard-sell to me.

What I do need to enjoy story-telling, is characters that make sense, which "Fun Batman" doesn't. Batman's whole reason for being is that his life isn't fun. It hurts the internal consistancy of the character and the setting to change that, and without good characterization, you can't have good story-telling.

A completely different hero would make me feel much better, provided it wasn't one that required an equally bad or worse characterization. Booster Gold and Blue Beetle would make good superheros to use in a young child-friendly cartoon, because you don't have to break the main points of their character to get that G rating. But because they aren't well known enough though, they'll only ever be guest stars or backup characters.

Since Batman is famous, he gets thematically-neutered and sent out to entertain the kiddies instead, and it's another case of market concerns trumping good story-telling. So I will say that they should have chosen another character. Young kids may know of Batman already, but that's no reason for Batman to be targeted directly at them. Kids know about all sorts of characters that aren't really appropriate for them, from the Terminator, to the South Park kids to the Sopranos, but you don't see Soprano-Babies the animated series getting put into production. And the fact that it can tie into movie that kids of the 6-10 age group are too young to be seeing anyway isn't a great argument for this show's existence either.

If the character was popular enough, we'd probably see a Punisher cartoon coming out aimed at the 6-10 set, where he shoots petty criminals with his nerf gun. Is that the same character anymore? I would say not. But because it's happened to Batman before (comics once the Code went into effect, the 60s Batman show, others) people are okay with it being done again.

I guess my question is, for those who enjoy "fun Batman," how much does a character have to change before you stop seeing it as the same character? Are the logo and costume enough? Because once you take away the defining characteristics, something that's almost impossible not to do in a young child-appropriate context, that's really all you're left with - interchangable corporate logos and costumes used to push an inferior product on children and the undiscerning.

well, considering batman started out pretty campy and aimed at kids, that's a whole different scenario. Punisher didn't start out kid friendly to begin with and he never will be kid friendly in any way, shape, or form. Batman, however, was built up to be something kids would inspire to be initially because he could hang with the big dogs without the powers. Then his story and rogue gallery got darker and darker and we have the batman we know today. So, considering camp is in his nature and he's has 2 campy cartoons under his belt already, I don't know why an updated camp cartoon won't be ok if they handle it correctly. Batman doesn't always have to be dark and brooding. Heck, not even Angel (Buffy) was always dark and broody.

edit: and no, the movie point may not be a great argument, but it's completely valid. We all know DC and Marvel start shelling out spinoffs/toons when they have the publics' interest with big budget titles. We also know that kids are going to see these movies, so let's not pretend they won't be there opening day with their parents/friends when we know many of them will be.

edit 2: How can we even comment on the story telling when we have no real story to go on?

edit 3: The other characters you mentioned weren't aimed for kids to begin with or marketed towards them. Batman was and still is marketed towards kids.

correct me if i'm wrong but in batman's first comics he shot people dead and basically kicked the living crap outta villains, not really kid friendly

notice i said im ignoring the pulp nature he started with as he got lighter as years went along (when robin showed up) and the camp nature was fully integrated by the time the adam west show was going on. It eventually died out but it was nowhere near as dark as it is today. Point being, even back then, comics were basically kid stories and batman was marketed for kids pretty early on and he still is today.

BTB, comics back then weren't nearly as graphic as they would be today, so that scene would probably be ambiguous and fine for a younger audience. If it weren't, we wouldn't have so many, "I grew up with this character as a kid and I've been collecting for 30+ years," people frollicking about.

Edit: Just to illustrate how tame and more "kid-appropriate" Batman's earlier appearances were compared to now, here's three scenes from his first appearance:

Now imagine those scenes drawn in today overly graphic style and the book effectively jumps from, "something a kid could see and not be scarred by," to "PG13/R rated violence". Even the shooting/stabbing scene was left tame enough so you get the general idea of what happened, but without the blood/actual bullet.

well, considering batman started out pretty campy and aimed at kids, that's a whole different scenario. Punisher didn't start out kid friendly to begin with and he never will be kid friendly in any way, shape, or form. Batman, however, was built up to be something kids would inspire to be initially because he could hang with the big dogs without the powers. Then his story and rogue gallery got darker and darker and we have the batman we know today. So, considering camp is in his nature and he's has 2 campy cartoons under his belt already, I don't know why an updated camp cartoon won't be ok if they handle it correctly. Batman doesn't always have to be dark and brooding. Heck, not even Angel (Buffy) was always dark and broody.

edit: and no, the movie point may not be a great argument, but it's completely valid. We all know DC and Marvel start shelling out spinoffs/toons when they have the publics' interest with big budget titles. We also know that kids are going to see these movies, so let's not pretend they won't be there opening day with their parents/friends when we know many of them will be.

edit 2: How can we even comment on the story telling when we have no real story to go on?

edit 3: The other characters you mentioned weren't aimed for kids to begin with or marketed towards them. Batman was and still is marketed towards kids.

Well, you can ignore his early stories if you want to, but the genesis of the character wasn't terribly child-friendly, and neither have his stories been since the 70s. They'd be fine for an adolescent, but a 5 or 6 year old? No. In that first story Batman throws one criminal off the roof of a building, and punches another into a vat of acid. Sure, it's not rendered in a particularly graphic way, but that's still way more violent than Batman is normally depicted, even in the comics of today. I don't think that first story of Batman is particularly tame or kid appropriate for those reasons; as you mention, if it was drawn today it would be much more graphic, but I also doubt it would include Batman probably-killing two criminals. If Batman effectively kills two criminals in the first episode of this new cartoon, but in a non-graphic way, I'll eat my hat.

So yes, Batman was always marketed to kids, but not little kids, and that's the issue that bothers me. What a 10 or 12 year old is ready for is a lot different than a 5 or 6 year old, but it's the 5 & 6 year old market that they appear to be chasing with this new cartoon (as well as with a variety of Batman-themed toys that already exist). Why? Because while a 10 or 12 year old might like the show very much, 10 and 12 year olds spend less of their parents' money on toys. In a lot of instances, they've already graduated from actually playing with toys at that age (clearly not including video games). That's why Kids WB got increasingly less and less interested in airing the Bruce Timm DC cartoons - it wasn't that they got bad ratings, but that they skewed too old demographically. This cartoon isn't being made because they want to hook kids into comics, or that they think Batman should be fun, but because little kids buy more toys, and its easy to put out a crappy show, have a big toy line and make more money. Because the character of Batman isn't really appropriate for a 5 or 6 year old, he gets thematically-neutered, and since crappy, marketing-based story-telling is part of Batman's history already, that's fine. The logo & costume are enough to get little kids to watch (and a segment of the comic-reading public, who will complain and complain, but still watch everything with their favourite characters), and are the reason for those deplorable toys they have now, like aqua-buddy Batman, and Tickle-me Spider-man. These toys have nothing to do with the characters but a costume and logo, and are marketed at little, little kids. This cartoon appears to be a step-up from those toys, but it's still a marketing-based decision to alter the character for greater profitability.

And I can talk about the story-telling already, because character is a part of it. A Batman who is happy-go-lucky, jokey - "Fun Batman" basically - doesn't make sense as a character.

Unless I missed some reading, and i probably have as i wasn't terribly interested to begin with and there's nothing but words to base anything off of, I don't know how we can talk about story telling from a photo and a guest list. Everything your debate is based upon is speculation as is everyone else and until the style or story is confirmed to be definite camp, or someone tells us what to expect, I don't see much there to judge except that single pic. Until things are further along, things can change and that could just be part of a title sequence for all we know.

I guess my question is, for those who enjoy "fun Batman," how much does a character have to change before you stop seeing it as the same character? Are the logo and costume enough? Because once you take away the defining characteristics, something that's almost impossible not to do in a young child-appropriate context, that's really all you're left with - interchangable corporate logos and costumes used to push an inferior product on children and the undiscerning.

Well, here's the thing... I don't see Batman being portrayed differently as such a big deal because he HAS had many different portrayals over the years. Just like I don't mind seeing Superman portrayed in so many different ways in different medium. People LOVE Smallville, and I appreciate it for making some people like Superman, but that isn't even close to MY Superman. MY Superman is more along the lines of All-Star Superman. MY Batman is more along the JLU style. But I enjoy seeing other interpretations.

On the other hand, take a character like Madman, or The Spirit whom I talked about, or something like that... they've only had ONE interpretation. That is who they are meant to be. Anything else isn't really the same character. And that means everything... the look, the way they act, their motives. Everything about them is consistent, and so they must be portrayed in the same way every time or it can never feel right.

Really, it might be the difference between mainstream characters and creator owned... With mainstream you have a million different people each giving their own interpretation on a character, their own little twists. Everybody's take is slightly different. They don't have the luxury of having one person controlling every aspect of them. So they get warped. They get bent. They get used for things that maybe they shouldn't. But, at the same time, it's interesting to see the different interpretations. Some might be enjoyed by one person, and some enjoyed by others.

I'd also like to ask... what do people think about Superman? Should he be kid friendly or no?